User talk:Eejit43

redirect-cleaner removes parameters

Special:Diff/1369822131 should probably not be happening. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

That is because those parameters aren't documented, in order for redirect-helper to handle them there must be TemplateData associated with the template in its documentation otherwise it removes them. This has been fixed for {{R from long name}}, {{R from alternative name}} will be fixed soon™ when I rerun my updater (currently waiting on a GitHub outage to be resolved as my updater depends on a JSON file to be loaded...). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for redirect helper! I've been going through broken section anchors and this script + a couple of my own mean that at this point I can often do all of the necessary work to retarget the redirect from one window, in one-two clicks. Rusalkii (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Add auto-fix for certain issues?

As part of the broken section anchor work I am editing a lot of redirects with sections one after another. Would be possible to add a setting to automatically apply R to section/R to anchor/R to wikidata automatically, or at least if the warning popped up after a save attempt, save immediately on adding them? Rusalkii (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii Hm, that seems like it wouldn't always be ideal, would a "auto-fix all and submit" button work for your use case? I think that could be a good balance of not taking unintended actions and resolve that slowdown. Thanks for your continued work on broken section anchors! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd certainly be an improvement! I can't think of a case when the wikidata/section anchor hints were wrong, but I get the caution. Rusalkii (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! I was about to propose that some specific issues should be auto-fixed silently, but this is a much better idea! Make the Submit blue and add a second button called Auto-fix all & submit or something like that! FaviFake (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll probably add a button following the errors to take that action, yes. I've been very busy so sorry for the bit of the delay Rusalkii. I'll hopefully get to this in the next day or so. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries!

I was thinking the new button could appear even if no issues have been identified yet. Otherwise, users would still follow a similar experience: Submit → Issues come up → Fix the issues and submit. If the button always appears, they have the option to just submit the redirect once and let the script do its thing. FaviFake (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this is pretty dangerous. For example, the auto-fix action for broken section links is to just remove the section. There are actions that don't have auto fixes too, and my concern is that these warnings will either be ignored or will be then automatically be resolved in an unintended manner.

Due to that I still want it to be a secondary action taken following validation. On auto fix it would still re-alert for unresolved issues, but it a broken section link was removed for example, that may not be caught by the user.

One thing to do would be to remove the broken section link auto fix, I'd have to check what other auto fixes I implemented back in the day. Let me know if you have any thoughts! I'll come back to this with a clearer head later. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

remove the broken section link auto fix
That's a good idea! I often create redirects before creating the anchor itself. FaviFake (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking a whitelist of autofixes that can be truly auto (tagging with section/anchor/wikidata are the ones that keep coming up for me, but I'm sure there's more). The alert for "this is tagged with a disambiguation rcat but is not a dab", for instance, is frequently wrong because it doesn't recognize name lists and other disambiglikes. But "submit" -> "hit autofix and submit" is still a better workflow than "submit" -> "hit autofix individually on each issues that comes up" -> "submit". Rusalkii (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii @FaviFake I've now implemented a "auto-fix all and resubmit" button. This button runs all auto-fixes listed and attempts to resubmit. If there are still errors it will be flagged.

To fix the issue I mentioned before, I've dropped the auto-fix for broken section/anchor links (the error will still be shown of course).

I still think this is the better solution than truly automatically resolving issues without the user knowing, but play around with it and let me know if you have thoughts.

Also, @Rusalkii, can you provide some examples of incorrect dab notices (or a lack of notices where there should be)? I have exceptions for surname lists already, and if there are other cases I'm missing please let me know. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! That's much better. It would be more convenient for me if the autofix all button was in the same place as the regular submit button, but I can see how you might not want that for most workflow.

Here's one example: Abdul Rahman (cricketer), I'll try to remember to bring you more when I find them. Rusalkii (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean you'd like the submit button to be "Auto-fix all and resubmit" instead of "submit"/"submit anyway". I'm not sure how the button could handle all three actions properly, so I think the way it is at the moment is the best solution that I can think of immediately

Regarding Abdul Rahman (cricketer)Abdul Rahman (cricketer), I have logic that checks for surname lists but looks like it wasn't properly doing so on pages with large numbers of categories. That is fixed now.

The script only allows {{R from ambiguous term}} and {{R from ambiguous sort name}} on redirects to surname lists though. I'm not as familiar with surname lists, but wouldn't {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} not apply here or would it? I may also need to handle given names, I'm not sure how common redirects are to those though. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Article cleaner bug: modifies image name in infobox

Hello, thank you for your work on the article cleaner bug; it's really useful. I wanted to report an issue I noticed today with the script. Currently, it will attempt to switch the dash/hyphen in an image name inside the infobox, which will break the image. (I assume this is because the infobox image names don't start with "File:"?) You can test it on the Marie Salmon page: if you run the script, it will replace Marie Salmon (1756-1827) portrait (05A).jpg with Marie Salmon (1756–1827) portrait (05A).jpg in the infobox. Note the dash change in "1756–1827". — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 19:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad it's been useful for you! I just pushed a fix for this issue, dash/hyphen changes should™ no longer happen in image parameters. Please let me know if you run into any further issues! (and sorry this took a few days to get to!) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)